[IAB] IAB Sends Comments to ICANN on the Transition NTIAâs Stewardship of the IANA Functions
alliance at fsp4.net
Wed Apr 30 10:19:30 UTC 2014
At 09:12 30/04/2014, xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>At 07:11 30/04/2014, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>Today, the IAB sent comments regarding the "Draft Proposal, Based
>>on Initial Community Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and
>>the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship
>>of the IANA Functions". The comments are on the IAB web site:
>If I can summarize the first received comments:
>1. "The IANA parameters fall into three categories: domain names,
>number resources, and other protocol parameters.
>2. "While there is some overlap among these categories, they are
>distinct enough that each one has accrued its own community of interest.
>* Domain names are generally but not exclusively of interest to the
>* number resources are generall y but not exclusively of interest to
>the RIR communities;
>* and protocol parameters are generally but not exclusively of
>interest to the IETF community".
This corresponds to the problem analysis part which only concerns the
"past-IANA" once amputated from the USG (FCC, then NTIA) supervision.
>1. does these "generally"s make ICANN, RIR and IETF stakeholders
>and/or the only stakeholders?
Yes. This rises the question: what is a stakeholder in the coming
process. All of us, some of us, none of us?
> 1.1. These three entities are "part-sysops": who should
> coordinate them and take care of the overlap?
IAB proposes a "coordinating" committee. The question is: out of the
gang of four (ISOC, IETF, ICANN, NROs) who can participate and how?
The ball is in their field.
> 1.2. What is their operational, political representativity?
It is limited to the single internet "territory": what about
multitechnology relations. This is the area of IAB which is not
documented in RFC 6852.
>2. there are three categories, but:
> 2.1. there is only one bundling called the "internet": its
> users make the largest category.
There are actually three kinds of users, whatever the perspective:
- those who only use the internet (less and less).
- those who use services on top of the internet.
- those who also use the internet in different forms of configuration.
May be an interesting way to consider stakeholders could be the
*proportions* of expenses in digitally oriented budgets and revenues?
> 2.2. these users use the internet with other technologies
> within national and international legal and economic frameworks the
> NTIA had competence for, but none of the "communities".
It is interesting that most of the debated points on the /1NET list
were related to contractual and legal issues, but no Californian, US,
and/or international lawyer contributed in their professionnal
capacity. What are the legal capacity, responsibility, authority,
insurrance coverage, liabilities, etc. of the gang of four? What will
be those of the other stakeholders, like you and us if we contribute.
>3.this position implies a "status-quo" while the NTIA's removal
>acknowledges that the times have changed. Is not the first question
>to reconsider the IANA from a repository function to a user oriented service?
This certainly is our first consideration priority. As a user we do
not bother where and how the information our systems need to
interoperate comes from. We need it to be the one expected by our
digital acquaintances. This extends far beyond the IANA data. What we
need is a IANA protocol that is compatible with the
update/information protocols from every technical information source
we may have to use.
An additional point: the DNSpolice and RegistrarAbuse teams become a
real pain. Moreover the WhoIs is violating the privacy laws in
several countries. Deprived from the NTIA support and when
considering http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27191500 we certainly
need an increased Governmental protection against US Judges and surveillance.
More information about the discuss